The sad thing I see in many strategic plans is that they're too long and verbose -- why is that? It's because they've incorporated much of what ought to be "normal work flow" into the so-called "strategic plan." To be sure, perhaps some items seem to be stretch-work, but does that notion elevate them to the level of strategy? In a word, no.
Allow me a small rant, also: nomenclature (what we call/name things) is really, really important. Again: nomenclature is important! I am dismayed when a plan identifies, say, five to seven "goals," each with three to five "strategies" to attain the goal. No! That's lazy "strategy templating." The school has one strategy, and it had better be well-articulated. A strategy is reliant on the confluence of action items, but there are not several strategies. Nomenclature is important!
Let me cite some examples that I've found in recently-published plans (released Fall 2011), as a means of illustrating what I'm saying. I have changed some wording to protect the innocent, but I've changed none of the fundamentals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example 1
Goal: Highlight and create distinctive features of the curriculum that produce students who will thrive as learners in a landscape that is constantly changing.
Strategy #1 (to attain aforementioned goal): Engage the question of what it means to be global.
Strategy #2: Determine our ability to engage in collaborative learning.
Strategy #3: Develop goals for integration of educational technology.
Commentary (mine)
- The goal? Edu-speak and fluff. I know that's harsh, but re-read it. I dare you. What does it say, fundamentally? Sure, it sounds nice, but it has no meat on the bones. "Highlight and create" = normal work flow.
- Strategy #1? How did that end up being designated as a strategy? That's normal work flow, folks. It involves faculty meetings, as a start.
- Strategy #2? Normal work flow! The admin team needs to figure out whether the faculty is capable of moving toward a more collaborative methodology.
- Strategy #3? Normal work flow...do you see the pattern? The admin team should be working to identify these goals, as part of their normal work flow. Why elevate it to "strategy" when it is not?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example 2
Goal: To continue to seek balance in the school's finances and financial projections, all of which are supported by an outstanding educational program, qualified personnel, regular balanced budgets, and attention to the physical plant.
Strategy #1: Continue to use a financial model to forecast revenue and expenses so that school leadership can plan accordingly.
Strategy #2: Increase major gift fundraising to levels that will allow the school to increase the endowment by 40 to 60%, to meet deferred maintenance demands, to provide early retirement packages, and to provide more professional development funds.
Commentary (mine)
- The goal? Word to the wise: anything that starts with "continue to..." is NOT a goal, nor is it strategic, by any stretch of the imagination. That's normal work flow, everyone... Again, ask yourself what the "goal" says, fundamentally. It screams, "We will continue to espouse balanced budgets that ensure that all our needs are met." That's called How to Run a Business, 101. In all honesty, this "goal" should never appear in a "strategic" plan. Why? It's a restatement of the obvious.
- Strategy #1: See above, insofar as the use of the word "continue" is concerned. Is this really a strategy? Just like the "goal," it is a restatement of the obvious. It doesn't merit being in print. And, as if you couldn't guess, it's normal work flow.
- Strategy #2: Here's a perfect example of a statement that ignores the elephant in the room; in other words, it doesn't come out and say what it ought to say -- "Holy cow, we need to raise a bunch of money to take care of some needs that either a) have been ignored or b) have resulted from benign neglect on the part of the administration."
Strategy #2 above is the one area that could be truly strategic for the school -- take notice of how the school has tried to lump several important areas under the rubric of major gift fundraising. Is it really about major gifts, or is it about something different? This issue needs to be fleshed out in greater depth; what is more, it is potentially so strategic that it might make sense to avoid publishing it for the world to see. Think about it: would you really wish to share something that intimate with the wide public?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope that these slightly-altered illustrations have underscored to you what ought to be normal work flow, and perhaps where an opportunity for true strategy lies, although it is currently masked within wording that obfuscates the real issue at hand. When such 'masking' happens, you can rest assured that the school will reach the end date of its plan (usually five years, with some variation) without having resolved some fundamental issues. And, I would submit, some pieces of the current plan will have to be re-articulated in the next strategic plan, since they weren't dealt with appropriately in the first place.
And so the cycle continues.